Sunday, August 10, 2014

911 - Why they didn't use planes

Why they didn't use planes

Gerard Holmgren

Sometimes
people ask me "why would they use missiles or whatever and run the
risk of being caught out ? If they're going to sell a story about
planes, why not make it as convincing as possible and use real planes" ?

It's a silly question, because in the face of direct visual and
forensic proof that they didn't use planes (mostly supported by what
little witness evidence we have), speculations about their thinking and
planning are meaningless.

Nevertheless, since we live in extremely silly times, I'm going to address this question on its own terms.

Put yourself in the position of the perps. You have to think through
what could go wrong in each possible scenario and then decide which
scenario poses the smallest risk.

You want to sell a story about hijacked planes.

At the first level of decision making, you have two choices.

1) Actually use planes.

2) Use missiles or whatever the blobs 11 thing is, and convince people that they were planes.

Lets first look at the second scenario. You have the media on your side to tell the story. What could go wrong?

1) Witnesses might see that they were not planes and report it.

Well this has actually happened, but it seems that nobody takes any
notice. The myth of "thousands of witnesses" to a big plane strike keeps
getting trotted out on the basis of a circular assumption. "Because big
jets were there, then people must have seen them - because people saw
them, that proves they were there."

Clearly the perps thought about how to minimize the problem of
contrary witness reports, and came up with a simple but effective plan.

This problem is easy to minimize. The first strike happens, and
because the object is small and fast and unexpected, no-one is too sure
what it is, or whether they saw it correctly. A few witness reports go
to air reporting missiles or small planes or no craft at all, but there
is only an 18 minute window for this to occur before the whole world
sees a big jet live on TV - using commercially available real time
animation technology. This distracts the media from interviewing many
witnesses to the second strike, because everyone is fixated on the video
replay. Those few witnesses who might get a moment with the media, then
lack confidence in what they saw, because once again, the object was
small, fast and unexpected. Seeing the TV replay - which was instantly
available - would make most people think that they just didn't see it
properly. The few who remain unshakable in their belief that it was not a
large plane are easily shouted down and drowned out by the endless
replays. In addition the airlines release a statement saying that
they've lost two big jets and any witness dissent is *instantly* - the
moment the second strike happens - marginalized almost to the point of
oblivion.

This is not speculation. Read through the transcripts of broadcasts
as they unfolded between about 8.47 and 9.30 and you will see that this
is *exactly* what happened. From the moment the second strike occurred,
anyone who tried to say that it was not a large jet immediately had a
TV replay shoved in their face.

What little witness evidence was gathered in the brief time
available between the two strikes was not enough to do any real damage,
and everything after that was corrupted by everybody having TV replays
of the second jet shoved in their face as soon as they opened their
mouths.

In that brief period between the two strikes, there was only one
witness who said a large jet - and that just happened to be the vice
prez of CNN, which of course is a major player in the scam - just as
pivotal as the govt.

So we can see that the problem of contrary witnesses, while a minor inconvenience is easily overcome with some good planning.

Again, this is not speculation. The successful execution of this
plan has been tested ion the real world - and it works. The scenario I
have outlined exactly fits with the documented record of the events.

Once the sheeple factor sets in, everyone is chanting "what about
the people who saw it ? " without ever bothering to check what those
people actually did report. And if they do check, the numbers of reports
are not high enough to inflict major damage on the official story. What
little there is overwhelmingly supports something other than a big jet,
but there wasn't enough time to gather enough numbers for this to be a
significant evidence factor. And as for the ordinary person on the
street - most of them would be easily convinced that they just didn't
see it properly. Some might have lingering doubts or suspicions, but
would be quickly silenced by ridicule and denial from the overwhelming
pressure of the TV footage, and the whole world trying to convince them
that they just didn't see it properly. Most would eventually come to
believe that themselves.

So - that problem is easily dealt with. No cover story solves
everything, and doubtless there are still some mutterings of doubt and
suspicion amongst some people who were there, but it isn't enough to
cause a serious problem.

Now to the other problem.

Someone might look at the videos and see what's really there. Which
is exactly what Rosalee has done. And people just go into mind
controlled denial. The alternative media is flooded with endless
debunkers. The perps knew our collective psychology well. They certainly
wouldn't be happy with the groundswell of awareness which Rosalee has
kick-started, but it looks very manageable compared to the problems I'm
about to outline with the strategy of using real jets.

Again, this is not speculation. The way that both of these problems
have been handled has been tested in the real world, fits exactly with
the documented record, and the fact that I am even needing to write
this, 3 years after Rosalee first busted the video evidence, is
testimony to how wisely the perps judged the choice of strategy.

Now lets look at the other choice - using real jets.

This immediately splits into two sub-choices 1) Pilot them with suicide pilots 2) Remote control them.

The problem with the first choice is obvious and I think most people
on this list have already accepted the absurdity and the monstrous
difficulties of such a scenario, so I won't go into them here.

Remote control.

Before addressing the problems with that, the scenario splits into more -sub-choices.

1) Hijack a real flight with real passengers aboard. 2) Launch a plane from somewhere else and pass it off as a real flight.

Basically, the choices here split into the option of crashing a
plane with passengers aboard or with no passengers aboard. Both
possibilities create potentially insurmountable problems in the cover up
- and a reduced likelihood of the crash being successfully targeted to
begin with.

Let's look at the latter problem. While it's certainly feasible to
remote control a large jet into the towers, it's a high precision
targeting job for an aircraft with very limited maneuverability. There's
a significant risk that the plane won't hit its target properly. That
it will hit some other building, just clip its wing on the tower and
crash into the streets or cause a cascade of damage on other non
targeted buildings, miss altogether and finish up in the Hudson, still
reasonably intact - all kinds of risks.

Whatever the calculated likelyhood of a successfully targeted crash,
it would have to be significantly lower than that of a missile or
blobs- thing, which is specifically engineered for such precision
strikes.

Even the smallest increase in risk of the target not being hit
properly would be completely unacceptable, given the easily manageable
nature of any problems associated with the alternative scenario.

And missing the target is only the beginning of the problem. What
about the aftermath ? Once it misses the target, there's a significant
risk that the aircraft may crash in such a manner that it's reasonably
intact. Rescue workers and emergency services who are completely
innocent of the scam, and ordinary people wanting to help out are going
to reach the wreckage before any perpsters, given that where it crashed
couldn't be foreseen.

And what are they going to find ? Two choices. A plane with no -one
in it. How are the perps going to explain that, huh ? Or a plane with
passengers. This raises even more problems. Using a plane with
passengers creates two more sub-choices.

1) Hope that all the passengers get killed in the crash, so there's
no survivors to talk or hope that the perps can get to them first and
knock them off before they do talk.

2) Kill them before the crash with a timed release of gas into the
aircon system. Which of course leaves more forensic evidence to cover
up, when the bodies are examined. Imagine the massive operation needed
to get enough perps swarming over the wreckage quickly enough to control
what the media,innocent rescue workers or survivors would start
blabbing before the spin sets in. Far worse than anything a few
witnesses could say in the 18 minutes between the two tower strikes.

These problems are not limited to the scenario of the aircraft not
crashing as they were meant to. If the planes were successfully crashed
into the towers, its still possible - although not very likely - that
there could be survivors. Nevertheless, even assuming that everyone was
killed, real crashes with real people leave real bodies, they don't just
vapourize like in the S11 cartoon. So you have hundreds of retrievable
bodies to worry about. If they were killed with gas prior to the crash,
then you have the same forensic cover up nightmare as in the scenario
where the plane misses its target.

And if you avoid this problem by hoping that everyone is killed in
the crash, you face the horrible risk that there will be dozens of
survivors to try to shut up - unlikely if the plane hits the target
properly - but you don't know that for sure.

In addition, real planes leave real wreckage - unlike the S11
cartoon - which means real flight recorder boxes to be found and more
stuff to hush up, involving more innocent officials to pressure. Of
course, enormous pressure can be brought to bear, but the problem is how
much would spill out before the spin gets into action. All of this is
far worse than what a few witnesses could say in the 18 minutes between
the strikes, and what a marginalized researcher can post on her website,
hoping that people take notice.

As you can see, the scenario of using real planes creates a
logistical nightmare compared to the piddling problem of a few witnesses
to the craft, and easily marginalized conspiracy nuts analyzing video -
easily suppressed by a compliant media.

In committing a crime, the idea is to leave as little mess as
possible, because every bit of mess is a potential clue. Even in the
event of a successfully targeted crash, real aircraft, scattering
wreckage and bodies everywhere creates an enormous amount of mess to
cover up compared to the relatively neat problem of a few witnesses and a
few conspiracy nuts trying to tell people what the video shows.

The problems of the real plane scenario are enormously compounded by
the possibility of a botched crash, which itself is a significantly
increased risk when using big lumbering jets not specifically designed
for that task as opposed to precision weaponry which is far more
reliable. In the unlikely event of a missile going off course, there
would be far less mess to leave clues, and an easier co-opting into a
plan B story - like terrorists stealing missiles and firing them at NY.

This explanation should hopefully put an end once and for all to the
plane hugging fantasy - but then, these are very silly times in which
we live.

Subscribe To

Followers

Fair Use Notice

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to civil rights, religious tolerance, economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science & technology, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.